On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:54:49 +0100
Roger Oberholtzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed into the bitstream:
[snip]
>
> I would be concerned about how they defined responsible. As a programmer
> I guess I would need some form of malpractice insurance to protect
> against law suits. Can damages be for more than the cost of the product?
> If so, perhaps a free product could have to pay $$$ liabilities? Bye bye
> open source (or at least free to use) software. Something has to pay the
> malpractice insurance.
>
> Who determines what a flaw is? Unless I provide EVERYTHING and
> the user can be proven to have done EXACTLY what I said, how can
> I be held responsible?
>
> I guess the Indian programmers will really benefit. Once the programming
> is done elsewhere (out of the law's jurisdiction), just move the company
> there as well.
Well, I have a couple of offshore companies here in Panama, and as long as
it doesn't cost me any money, the programs could be "laundered" through
one of them (the author still retaining rights, just allowing the program
to be moved out of the US and away from incredibly clueless US lawmakers).
>
> If you can't define it properly, how can you legislate it properly?
you can't. Which means it will not be well-thought, which leads to even
worse state-by-state implementation of ???? -- GIGO (garbage in, garbage
out).
>
> I can also see this leading to a whole set of government regulations as
> to how software is made so that liability can be determined. This could
> result in it being more difficult to sell software in the US from
> abroad? Like the FDA does for drugs.
>
Uh huh, so how do you prevent folks from d/l "foreign" software?
Ciao,
David A. Bandel
--
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
-- Nemesis Racing Team motto
Internet (H323) phone: 206.28.187.30
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
